FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   600   601   602   603   604   605   606   607   608   609   610   611   612   613   614   615   616   617   618   619   620   621   622   623   624  
625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632   633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   >>   >|  
sixth article which prohibits slavery_; thus conceding, both the competency of law to abolish slavery, and the power of Congress to do it, within its jurisdiction. (These acts show the prevalent belief at that time, in the slaveholding States, that the general government had adopted a line of policy aiming at the exclusion of slavery from the entire territory of the United States, not included within the original States, and that this policy would be pursued unless prevented by specific and formal stipulation.) Slaveholding States have asserted this power _in their judicial decisions_. In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if the legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has been abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal emancipates them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery. This principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, Lunsford vs. Coquillon, 14 Martin's La. Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, Hunter vs. Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172. The same doctrine was laid down by Judge Washington, of the U. S. Sup. Court, Butler vs. Hopper, Washington's C. C. Reps. 508; also, by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky, Rankin vs. Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson vs. Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts vs. Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps. 566. The State vs. Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise vs. Mariot, 8 La. Reps. 475. In this case, which was tried in 1836, the slave had been taken by her master to France and brought back; Judge Matthews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that "residence for one moment" under the laws of France emancipated her. 6. EMINENT STATESMEN, THEMSELVES SLAVEHOLDERS, HAVE CONCEDED THIS POWER. Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, says: "There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by _legislative_ authority." In a letter to Lafayette, May 10, 1786, he says: "It (the abolition of slavery) certainly might, and assuredly ought to be effected, and that too by _legislative_ authority." In a letter to John Fenton Mercer, Sept. 9, 1786, he says: "It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished by _law_." In a letter to Sir John Sinc
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   600   601   602   603   604   605   606   607   608   609   610   611   612   613   614   615   616   617   618   619   620   621   622   623   624  
625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632   633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
slavery
 

States

 

letter

 

adopted

 

Washington

 

Supreme

 
abolition
 

Louisiana

 

France

 

constitution


asserted
 

decided

 

wishes

 
abolished
 
authority
 
legislative
 

policy

 
Gillespie
 

Lasselle

 

EMINENT


Blackford

 

emancipated

 

Randolph

 

brought

 

STATESMEN

 
master
 

Matthews

 
Mariot
 

Louise

 

moment


residence

 

living

 

assuredly

 

effected

 
accomplished
 

Lafayette

 
Fenton
 

Mercer

 

country

 

Morris


Robert

 

SLAVEHOLDERS

 

CONCEDED

 
Spotts
 

proper

 
effectual
 
sincerely
 

THEMSELVES

 
doctrine
 
pursued